• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT: Scientists Link Hurricane Harvey’s Record Rainfall to Climate Change

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
22,947
Reaction score
17,776
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
NYT Article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/climate/hurricane-harvey-climate-change.html

Two studies show that climate change increased the amount of rainfall produced by Harvey. One study thinks that human-generated warming increased the storm's rainfall by 15%, and made a storm of this magnitude 3 times more likely; a second study shows an increase of 38%.

Yep, the era of being hesitant about the impact of climate change on big storms is pretty much over.

1st study: Attribution of extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey, August 2017 - IOPscience

As far as I can tell, 2nd study is not released yet.
 
NYT Article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/climate/hurricane-harvey-climate-change.html

Two studies show that climate change increased the amount of rainfall produced by Harvey. One study thinks that human-generated warming increased the storm's rainfall by 15%, and made a storm of this magnitude 3 times more likely; a second study shows an increase of 38%.

Yep, the era of being hesitant about the impact of climate change on big storms is pretty much over.

1st study: Attribution of extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey, August 2017 - IOPscience

As far as I can tell, 2nd study is not released yet.

And yet Harvey's rainfall cooperated with the same rainfall standard they have been using for almost a half a century.
They predict how much rainfall a hurricane will drop, based on 100 divided by the storms speed in MPH.
Harvey was moving at 2 MPH, so 50 inches.
Attribution of a change would actually have to show a change.
 
NYT Article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/climate/hurricane-harvey-climate-change.html

Two studies show that climate change increased the amount of rainfall produced by Harvey. One study thinks that human-generated warming increased the storm's rainfall by 15%, and made a storm of this magnitude 3 times more likely; a second study shows an increase of 38%.

Yep, the era of being hesitant about the impact of climate change on big storms is pretty much over.

1st study: Attribution of extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey, August 2017 - IOPscience

As far as I can tell, 2nd study is not released yet.

You claim a categorical epistemological closure after two studies of a single storm, which produced different results, and one of which isn't even available yet?

Not very scientific.
 

[h=1]Study: a ‘statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists’ in hurricane landfalls[/h]This is going to rattle some cages, while at the same time vindicating Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. A new study in Geophysical research Letters studies hurricane activity in the Atlantic concludes that a “statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists”. An Energetic Perspective on United States Tropical Cyclone Landfall Droughts Authors Ryan E. Truchelut, Erica M. Staehling Abstract…

4 days ago December 9, 2017 in hurricanes.
 

[h=1]Cutting through the myths about Irma, Harvey, and climate change.[/h]By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website Summary: Climate scientist Judith Curry discusses Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the state of knowledge about hurricanes, and the announcements of their connection to climate change. These storms teach us lessons we cannot afford to ignore. . Interview of Dr. Judith Curry by David Whitehouse of the Global…

October 7, 2017 in Climate News.
 

[h=1]Enough is Enough! Stop hyping Harvey and Irma![/h] Dr. Neil Frank, former Director National Hurricane Center Over the past several weeks numerous articles suggest Harvey and Irma were the result of global warming. The concept is a warmer earth will generate stronger and wetter hurricanes. A number of people have said Irma was the most intense hurricane in the history of the…

September 25, 2017 in hurricanes.
 

[h=1]The Hurricane Harvey Hustle[/h]Facts about Harvey negate attempts to use it to advance manmade climate cataclysm agendas Guest essay by Paul Driessen “When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight,” English essayist Samuel Johnson observed 240 years ago, “it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” That’s certainly true in the climate change arena. After ending US…

September 9, 2017 in Opinion.
 

[h=1]Fact: Hurricanes Harvey and Irma Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming[/h]By ALAN REYNOLDS, Cato Institute “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like: It’s time to open our eyes and prepare for the world that’s coming.” That August 28 Politico article by Slate weatherman Eric Holthaus was one of many trying too hard to blame the hurricane and/or flood on climate change. Such stories are typically infused with smug arrogance. Their authors…

September 9, 2017 in Climate News.
 
[h=1]Beware Greens Exploiting Hurricanes[/h]Posted on 12 Sep 17 by SCEPTICUS 6 Comments
Ben Pile has an article up at Spiked: When Hurricane Harvey landed on Texas, it marked the end of a 12-year lull in major hurricanes hitting the US. This period – which also featured a long ‘hiatus’ in global warming, the failure of ice-free Arctic predictions and the growth of polar-bear populations – had long … Continue reading
 

[h=1]Study: a ‘statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists’ in hurricane landfalls[/h]This is going to rattle some cages, while at the same time vindicating Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. A new study in Geophysical research Letters studies hurricane activity in the Atlantic concludes that a “statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists”. An Energetic Perspective on United States Tropical Cyclone Landfall Droughts Authors Ryan E. Truchelut, Erica M. Staehling Abstract…

4 days ago December 9, 2017 in hurricanes.

Mr. Watts once again shows his inability to correctly report the science. The paper in question concluded that there was a statistically significant downward trend in the percentage of Atlantic basin storms making landfall in the US, not a downward trend in hurricane activity in the Atlantic, as your quoted sentence implies.
 
Mr. Watts once again shows his inability to correctly report the science. The paper in question concluded that there was a statistically significant downward trend in the percentage of Atlantic basin storms making landfall in the US, not a downward trend in hurricane activity in the Atlantic, as your quoted sentence implies.

Your post is, quite simply, a falsehood. Watts got it exactly right. In a way I'm encouraged by the desperation on your part this reveals. The abstract:

The extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season concluded an extended period of quiescent continental United States tropical cyclone landfall activity that began in 2006, commonly referred to as the landfall drought. We introduce an extended climatology of U.S. tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity. The drought years between 2006 and 2016 recorded an average value of total annual ACE over the U.S. that was less than 60% of the 1900–2017 average. Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950, with the percentage of total Atlantic ACE expended over the continental U.S. at a series minimum during the recent drought period.
 
Your post is, quite simply, a falsehood. Watts got it exactly right. In a way I'm encouraged by the desperation on your part this reveals. The abstract:

The extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season concluded an extended period of quiescent continental United States tropical cyclone landfall activity that began in 2006, commonly referred to as the landfall drought. We introduce an extended climatology of U.S. tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity. The drought years between 2006 and 2016 recorded an average value of total annual ACE over the U.S. that was less than 60% of the 1900–2017 average. Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950, with the percentage of total Atlantic ACE expended over the continental U.S. at a series minimum during the recent drought period.

I suggest you actually read the part of the abstract that you highlighted. Note, in particular, the word "percentage". And what do you think "scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity" means?

Edit: I'd also note that some of the AGW deniers commenting on Watts's article realise that he is on shaky ground here, with JimG1 writing:

"Landfalls are a matter of weather/chance. No drought of Atlantic hurricanes seems to exist.
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp Lets not cherry pick like agw fanatics."
 
Last edited:
FYI, Jack is on my ignore list. So, all I see is a dozen "this message is hidden" panels. Guess I struck a nerve. :mrgreen:

So, in a rare response:

1) The claim that the number of hurricanes making landfall on the US in any way refutes climate change is equally laughable and pathetic. It's a straw man.

2) Clinging to both WUWT and Curry is also pretty sad.

3) Neil Frank apparently believes that God does not allow climate change. Impressive.

4) The idea that Philip Klotzbach's straw man tweet magically refutes two papers that discuss a completely different aspect of those storms is equally laughable and pathetic.

Paul Driessen... Cato... 2nd Curry link... Same straw man.

To put it another way: Your Gish Gallop is completely ineffective. It's not even referring to the evidence presented by these two articles.

To illustrate the point a bit better, here's a quote from the Oldenborgh paper:

The observed and expected response of tropical cyclones (TCs_ to
greenhouse gas-induced climate change has been the
subject of intense research. Globally, there is an expectation
that increasing greenhouse gases will lead to a
decrease or no change in the overall number of TCs, but
that the maximum wind speed and precipitation of the
strongest storms should increase
(Hesselbjerg Christensen
et al 2013). However, there is low confidence
in region-specific projections. For the Atlantic basin,
there is considerable spread in the expected change in
TC frequency resulting from CO2 increases, even considering
only the strongest storms (Knutson et al 2013).
Furthermore, changes in observing practices limit confidence
in century-scale trends in Atlantic hurricane
frequency (Vecchi and Knutson, 2011). That is, at this
stage, there is no clear scientific evidence to support
the notion that the existence of Harvey was made more
likely by global warming.

However, the impacts of Harvey may have been
influenced by global warming; studies consistently indicate
that greenhouse gas-induced warming should lead
to increases in the total and maximum rainfall by TCs

(Knutson et al 2010, Scoccimarro et al 2014, Villarini
et al 2014). In general, the maximum moisture
content of air increases with 6%–8.5% per degree
warming, according to the Clausius-Clapeyron (CC)
relationship (Clapeyron 1834, Clausius 1850, Held and
Soden2006, O’Gorman2015). If relative humidity stays
the same, which is the norm near oceans, the actual
amount of water vapour in the air increases by the same
amount.

(Emphasis added)
 
I suggest you actually read the part of the abstract that you highlighted. Note, in particular, the word "percentage". And what do you think "scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity" means?

Edit: I'd also note that some of the AGW deniers commenting on Watts's article realise that he is on shaky ground here, with JimG1 writing:

"Landfalls are a matter of weather/chance. No drought of Atlantic hurricanes seems to exist.
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp Lets not cherry pick like agw fanatics."

And again, Watts hits that on the nose. Your objection has been conjured purely out of your fevered desperation.

The 2006–2016 drought years did record the lowest percentage of storm activity occurring over the U.S. relative to what was observed over the entire Atlantic. This finding is further evidence for a trade-off between atmospheric conditions favoring hurricane development and those that are most favorable for powerful storms to move towards the U.S. coastline.

That's why the title includes the phrase "statistically significant," because it's not a matter of chance.
And then there's this.

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s Hurricane Drought Graph:

 
And again, Watts hits that on the nose. Your objection has been conjured purely out of your fevered desperation.

The 2006–2016 drought years did record the lowest percentage of storm activity occurring over the U.S. relative to what was observed over the entire Atlantic. This finding is further evidence for a trade-off between atmospheric conditions favoring hurricane development and those that are most favorable for powerful storms to move towards the U.S. coastline.

That's why the title includes the phrase "statistically significant," because it's not a matter of chance.
And then there's this.

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s Hurricane Drought Graph:


Is your scientific comprehension that bad? That's a quote from the paper, not Watts's writing, and it supports what I just said. Note the phrase "relative to what was observed over the entire Atlantic".

And yes, we all know what "statistically significant" means. It's just that you seem to be having considerable difficulty understanding what that statistical significance refers to.
 
And yet Harvey's rainfall cooperated with the same rainfall standard they have been using for almost a half a century.
They predict how much rainfall a hurricane will drop, based on 100 divided by the storms speed in MPH.
Harvey was moving at 2 MPH, so 50 inches.
Attribution of a change would actually have to show a change.
Try again.

During August 25–30, 2017, Hurricane Harvey stalled over Texas and caused extreme precipitation,
particularly over Houston and the surrounding area on August 26–28. This resulted in extensive
flooding with over 80 fatalities and large economic costs. It was an extremely rare event: the return
period of the highest observed three-day precipitation amount, 1043.4 mm 3dy−1 at Baytown, is more
than 9000 years
(97.5% one-sided confidence interval) and return periods exceeded 1000 yr (750
mm 3dy−1) over a large area in the current climate. Observations since 1880 over the region show a
clear positive trend in the intensity of extreme precipitation of between 12% and 22%
, roughly two
times the increase of the moisture holding capacity of the atmosphere expected for 1 ◦C warming
according to the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) relation. This would indicate that the moisture flux was
increased by both the moisture content and stronger winds or updrafts driven by the heat of
condensation of the moisture. We also analysed extreme rainfall in the Houston area in three
ensembles of 25 km resolution models. The first also shows 2 ×CC scaling, the second 1 ×CC scaling
and the third did not have a realistic representation of extreme rainfall on the Gulf Coast.
Extrapolating these results to the 2017 event, we conclude that global warming made the precipitation
about 15% (8%–19%) more intense
, or equivalently made such an event three (1.5–5) times more
likely. This analysis makes clear that extreme rainfall events along the Gulf Coast are on the rise.

(Emphasis added)

I have no idea where you're getting your vastly oversimplified claims. What I can say is that the authors detected a significant increase over time in the intensity of precipitation in these kinds of storms, which produces extreme results.
 
FYI, Jack is on my ignore list. So, all I see is a dozen "this message is hidden" panels. Guess I struck a nerve. :mrgreen:

So, in a rare response:

1) The claim that the number of hurricanes making landfall on the US in any way refutes climate change is equally laughable and pathetic. It's a straw man.

2) Clinging to both WUWT and Curry is also pretty sad.

3) Neil Frank apparently believes that God does not allow climate change. Impressive.

4) The idea that Philip Klotzbach's straw man tweet magically refutes two papers that discuss a completely different aspect of those storms is equally laughable and pathetic.

Paul Driessen... Cato... 2nd Curry link... Same straw man.

To put it another way: Your Gish Gallop is completely ineffective. It's not even referring to the evidence presented by these two articles.

To illustrate the point a bit better, here's a quote from the Oldenborgh paper:

The observed and expected response of tropical cyclones (TCs_ to
greenhouse gas-induced climate change has been the
subject of intense research. Globally, there is an expectation
that increasing greenhouse gases will lead to a
decrease or no change in the overall number of TCs, but
that the maximum wind speed and precipitation of the
strongest storms should increase
(Hesselbjerg Christensen
et al 2013). However, there is low confidence
in region-specific projections. For the Atlantic basin,
there is considerable spread in the expected change in
TC frequency resulting from CO2 increases, even considering
only the strongest storms (Knutson et al 2013).
Furthermore, changes in observing practices limit confidence
in century-scale trends in Atlantic hurricane
frequency (Vecchi and Knutson, 2011). That is, at this
stage, there is no clear scientific evidence to support
the notion that the existence of Harvey was made more
likely by global warming.

However, the impacts of Harvey may have been
influenced by global warming; studies consistently indicate
that greenhouse gas-induced warming should lead
to increases in the total and maximum rainfall by TCs

(Knutson et al 2010, Scoccimarro et al 2014, Villarini
et al 2014). In general, the maximum moisture
content of air increases with 6%–8.5% per degree
warming, according to the Clausius-Clapeyron (CC)
relationship (Clapeyron 1834, Clausius 1850, Held and
Soden2006, O’Gorman2015). If relative humidity stays
the same, which is the norm near oceans, the actual
amount of water vapour in the air increases by the same
amount.

(Emphasis added)

Yup. The bolded passages are those with "may" and "should" and "expectation," but no evidence. I don't have you on ignore because I don't fear the data.

As for the rest of your post, just deflecting ad hominems.
 
Is your scientific comprehension that bad? That's a quote from the paper, not Watts's writing, and it supports what I just said. Note the phrase "relative to what was observed over the entire Atlantic".

And yes, we all know what "statistically significant" means. It's just that you seem to be having considerable difficulty understanding what that statistical significance refers to.

Yes, it supports what you said because there's no disagreement. Your objection derives from your willful misreading.
 
Try again.

During August 25–30, 2017, Hurricane Harvey stalled over Texas and caused extreme precipitation,
particularly over Houston and the surrounding area on August 26–28. This resulted in extensive
flooding with over 80 fatalities and large economic costs. It was an extremely rare event: the return
period of the highest observed three-day precipitation amount, 1043.4 mm 3dy−1 at Baytown, is more
than 9000 years
(97.5% one-sided confidence interval) and return periods exceeded 1000 yr (750
mm 3dy−1) over a large area in the current climate. Observations since 1880 over the region show a
clear positive trend in the intensity of extreme precipitation of between 12% and 22%
, roughly two
times the increase of the moisture holding capacity of the atmosphere expected for 1 ◦C warming
according to the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) relation. This would indicate that the moisture flux was
increased by both the moisture content and stronger winds or updrafts driven by the heat of
condensation of the moisture. We also analysed extreme rainfall in the Houston area in three
ensembles of 25 km resolution models. The first also shows 2 ×CC scaling, the second 1 ×CC scaling
and the third did not have a realistic representation of extreme rainfall on the Gulf Coast.
Extrapolating these results to the 2017 event, we conclude that global warming made the precipitation
about 15% (8%–19%) more intense
, or equivalently made such an event three (1.5–5) times more
likely. This analysis makes clear that extreme rainfall events along the Gulf Coast are on the rise.

(Emphasis added)

I have no idea where you're getting your vastly oversimplified claims. What I can say is that the authors detected a significant increase over time in the intensity of precipitation in these kinds of storms, which produces extreme results.

I was here for it, got 48 inches at my house, I know it rained a lot.
What I am saying is that the amount of rainfall was predicted ahead of time, based on the storms
predicted speed. The speed prediction was accurate, so the rainfall prediction was accurate.
but it was based on the same rule of thumb they have been using for almost 50 years.
They can use terms like 1000 year flood, all they want, but the only thing special about Harvey
was that Hurricanes usually move faster. The high rain events are usually tropical storms, that
slow down more often than full hurricanes.
P.S.
My simplified claim is coming from NOAA.
Blank


Forecasters in the in the 60s and 70s often used a rule of thumb (the Kraft rule of thumb technique) to estimate the rainfall associated with tropical systems.

Maximum rainfall (inches)=100/speed (in knots)
 
Last edited:
Mr. Watts once again shows his inability to correctly report the science. The paper in question concluded that there was a statistically significant downward trend in the percentage of Atlantic basin storms making landfall in the US, not a downward trend in hurricane activity in the Atlantic, as your quoted sentence implies.


Your initial premise was false, deriving from your deep need to attack Watts. The "quoted sentence" implied nothing of the sort claimed by you. Please note the title of the post referring to a "statistically significant downward trend" in "hurricane landfalls."
 
Last edited:
Yup. The bolded passages are those with "may" and "should" and "expectation," but no evidence.
:roll:

I provided a link to the first paper, which actually presents the evidence. You obviously didn't even skim the paper. Or read the NYT article. Or read the post to which you are responding.


I don't have you on ignore because I don't fear the data.
And yet, you didn't actually bother to look at the data. Hmmmmm


As for the rest of your post, just deflecting ad hominems.
No, it isn't. As you would know, if you had actually read anything I'd written and linked.

Almost every post in your Gish Gallop invokes the same straw man argument. As I quoted -- in a passage you apparently did not read -- the current expectation is that climate change will either reduce or keep the same frequency of tropical cyclones, while the intensity of those storms will increase. (So will the damage, although part of the damage is because we insist on building and rebuilding in increasingly vulnerable areas, and are not preparing adequately for the increased intensity of those storms.)

Even more critical is that a significant portion of hurricanes never make landfall on the US. Nothing about climate change suggests that more tropical cyclones will hit the US. That entire perspective is, to put it mildly, unscientifically myopic.

So, can you do anything more than post links to irrelevant WUWT and Curry articles?
 
Back
Top Bottom